By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - What is compassionate about a nation having a welfare system?

Kasz216 on 28 October 2010
disolitude said:

My parents were on welfare for about a year when we got in to Canada. No one really wants to employ chemical engeneers that don't speak English.

Even if 50% of people on welfare abuse the system, the other 50% of people it genuenly helps to get started in a country are worth having welfare.

Don't you usually have to speak the language before they allow you to immigrate to most countries in the first place?



Around the Network
Kasz216 on 28 October 2010
Squilliam said:

Welfare is actually meant to be an investment, funnily enough. It is supposed to be an investment in the human capital of a nation. One of the problems of any large society is that the people who are most likely to have children are the people most likely to screw their lives without assistance from the government. The only way to prevent that would be to curtail personal liberties, ala China because unfortunately those best able to raise the next generation are those least willing to do the work.

The largest problem is there no advantage to working a crappy job vs getting the same or more from welfare.

I'm interested to see how the new UK plan will work effects wise.  Allowing you to keep some benefits when you get your crappy job, making the crappy job worth more money.



disolitude on 28 October 2010
Kasz216 said:
disolitude said:

My parents were on welfare for about a year when we got in to Canada. No one really wants to employ chemical engeneers that don't speak English.

Even if 50% of people on welfare abuse the system, the other 50% of people it genuenly helps to get started in a country are worth having welfare.

Don't you usually have to speak the language before they allow you to immigrate to most countries in the first place?

It is prefered but not a manditory requirement.

Level of education, age, languages spoken, work experience, number of kids are all considered.



Squilliam on 28 October 2010
Kasz216 said:
Squilliam said:

Welfare is actually meant to be an investment, funnily enough. It is supposed to be an investment in the human capital of a nation. One of the problems of any large society is that the people who are most likely to have children are the people most likely to screw their lives without assistance from the government. The only way to prevent that would be to curtail personal liberties, ala China because unfortunately those best able to raise the next generation are those least willing to do the work.

The largest problem is there no advantage to working a crappy job vs getting the same or more from welfare.

I'm interested to see how the new UK plan will work effects wise.  Allowing you to keep some benefits when you get your crappy job, making the crappy job worth more money.

I wouldn't know about the UK as I live in NZ. Personally if I was to choose between the American style of screwed up government and the UK style of screwed up government, I would have to choose the former, having lived in the UK for 9 months.

In New Zealand we have something in the order like that. You can earn $80 before your government 'welfare' gets docked at a rate of 70% per pre tax dollar earnt. Which effectively means that after $80 the person gets to keep $1 out of every $10 or an effective marginal tax rate of 90%! This is entirely screwed up but thankfully/hopefully it looks like it'll get fixed over the coming two years as we finally have a more sensible government in with a prime-minister whom ran a successful business before running for office.

So regarding that system, it can/probably work but only if it is actually designed properly. Otherwise it can act as a massive disincentive to work and can be even worse than not having it at all.



Tease.

richardhutnik on 28 October 2010

So, can anyone here argue that a nation using government run welfare to handle the poor and needy is a compassinate nation?  I am curious to see if anyone can argue this.



Around the Network
disolitude on 28 October 2010
richardhutnik said:

So, can anyone here argue that a nation using government run welfare to handle the poor and needy is a compassinate nation?  I am curious to see if anyone can argue this.

I don't think it has anything to do with compasion. Its like Squil said, investment in your people.

Its a level of Socialism...hence why a lot of American's are posting here with extremist right wing opinions. They don't like Socialism.



richardhutnik on 28 October 2010
disolitude said:
richardhutnik said:

So, can anyone here argue that a nation using government run welfare to handle the poor and needy is a compassinate nation?  I am curious to see if anyone can argue this.

I don't think it has anything to do with compasion. Its like Squil said, investment in your people.

Its a level of Socialism...hence why a lot of American's are posting here with extremist right wing opinions. They don't like Socialism.


Investment?  So is that why social services feels like a bank with poor customer service?



disolitude on 28 October 2010
richardhutnik said:
disolitude said:
richardhutnik said:

So, can anyone here argue that a nation using government run welfare to handle the poor and needy is a compassinate nation?  I am curious to see if anyone can argue this.

I don't think it has anything to do with compasion. Its like Squil said, investment in your people.

Its a level of Socialism...hence why a lot of American's are posting here with extremist right wing opinions. They don't like Socialism.


Investment?  So is that why social services feels like a bank with poor customer service?


Cause people who are running it or calling the shots are incompetent or have other agendas for keeping the welfare service the way it is...

Trust me, no one would want to be on welfare if they had to do weekly reports and checks as to what work they were looking for, what job training classes they attended, what they are doing to improve their situation...



richardhutnik on 28 October 2010
disolitude said:
richardhutnik said:
disolitude said:
richardhutnik said:

So, can anyone here argue that a nation using government run welfare to handle the poor and needy is a compassinate nation?  I am curious to see if anyone can argue this.

I don't think it has anything to do with compasion. Its like Squil said, investment in your people.

Its a level of Socialism...hence why a lot of American's are posting here with extremist right wing opinions. They don't like Socialism.


Investment?  So is that why social services feels like a bank with poor customer service?


Cause people who are running it or calling the shots are incompetent or have other agendas for keeping the welfare service the way it is...

Trust me, no one would want to be on welfare if they had to do weekly reports and checks as to what work they were looking for, what job training classes they attended, what they are doing to improve their situation...

Are you aware of how the system works currently, since the reforms of Clinton?  Individuals on welfare, unless they are woman looking after children, are put EXACTLY into the situation described.  They are required to have to give reports back to the system, get into training, and report.  And they have a few years tops.  Of course, there is emergency shelter needs that happen, but then it is into the system.  It is handled very beaurocratically also.  Honestly, the DMV is more compassionate than social services these days.



disolitude on 28 October 2010
richardhutnik said:
disolitude said:
richardhutnik said:
disolitude said:
richardhutnik said:

So, can anyone here argue that a nation using government run welfare to handle the poor and needy is a compassinate nation?  I am curious to see if anyone can argue this.

I don't think it has anything to do with compasion. Its like Squil said, investment in your people.

Its a level of Socialism...hence why a lot of American's are posting here with extremist right wing opinions. They don't like Socialism.


Investment?  So is that why social services feels like a bank with poor customer service?


Cause people who are running it or calling the shots are incompetent or have other agendas for keeping the welfare service the way it is...

Trust me, no one would want to be on welfare if they had to do weekly reports and checks as to what work they were looking for, what job training classes they attended, what they are doing to improve their situation...

Are you aware of how the system works currently, since the reforms of Clinton?  Individuals on welfare, unless they are woman looking after children, are put EXACTLY into the situation described.  They are required to have to give reports back to the system, get into training, and report.  And they have a few years tops.  Of course, there is emergency shelter needs that happen, but then it is into the system.  It is handled very beaurocratically also.  Honestly, the DMV is more compassionate than social services these days.

I know how it works in Canada, and it tends to work to a certain degree.